Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2012 22:11 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 537942
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Bloggers twist and turn the truth and dont know the law
by jared_wilkes on Tue 9th Oct 2012 14:01
in reply to "RE[3]: Bloggers twist and turn the truth and dont know the law"
Are you intentionally being silly or are you really that ignorant?
Apple's ENTIRE CASE is built around this very premise. Apple argues that Samsung *wilfully* copied/infringed Apple's designs, trade dress, and software patents. That's Apple's CENTRAL reason to start this court case. Are you arguing this is untrue? Are you arguing that Apple started this case because of other reasons?
Apple's ENTIRE CASE is built around this very premise. Apple argues that Samsung *wilfully* copied/infringed Apple's designs, trade dress, and software patents. That's Apple's CENTRAL reason to start this court case. Are you arguing this is untrue? Are you arguing that Apple started this case because of other reasons?
And? It's you who is being silly. You have claimed that this document has been presented as proof of a copy order. This is quite specific and different from the purpose of the ENTIRE CASE. You've claimed there are specific comments by Apple lawyers suggesting that this document was presented as proof of a copy order. You didn't claim that Apple sued for copyright, patent, and trade dress infringement; you didn't claim that this was the reason for the trial on such charges. You claim Apple presented this document as proof of an order to copy the iPhone. You claim they made specific statements saying exactly that. You cannot provide any quotes of any such statements because they do not exist.
RE[5]: Bloggers twist and turn the truth and dont know the law
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 9th Oct 2012 14:15
in reply to "RE[4]: Bloggers twist and turn the truth and dont know the law"
Uh, I think you really have no understanding of what this court case is all about. Apple is arguing that not only did Samsung copy Apple - but it did so *wilfully*. Wilfully means that it was done *on purpose*. In other words, that someone inside Samsung said "copy the iPhone" (that's what trade dress is - the entire appearance). Apple's lawyers have hammered on about wilfulness all through the court proceedings and their filings - and this document, as well as the side-by-side comparison - was used to strengthen Apple's argument that Samsung acted wilfully.
This is all quite basic stuff.





Member since:
2005-06-29
This is the fourth time you've said this, and this time you've clearly asserted there is a quote. Please provide this quote where Apple states there was an order to copy the iPhone and that this document is proof of it, please. "
Are you intentionally being silly or are you really that ignorant?
Apple's ENTIRE CASE is built around this very premise. Apple argues that Samsung *wilfully* copied/infringed Apple's designs, trade dress, and software patents. That's Apple's CENTRAL reason to start this court case. Are you arguing this is untrue? Are you arguing that Apple started this case because of other reasons?
If so, I - and I imagine the rest of the world, including Apple itself - would love to know which reasons they are.